Wednesday, September 30, 2009

BBC Edits To Spare Brown's Blushes

On Monday - indeed in the very post below - I drew attention to Brown's sudden change of heart on TV debates. On the 10 o'clock news that night, Nick Robinson also confirmed that Brown's debate 'challenge' was included in the latest draft of his speech.

And yet, when Brown gave his speech yesterday, there was no mention of debates at all. It had suddenly been removed, and no challenge to David Cameron was forthcoming.

However, a funny thing seems to have happened. Click on the BBC link from Monday - the one that originally began with the line "Gordon Brown is ready..." And what you'll see is that the article has been completely altered to one titled 'We're not done yet, insists Brown', which is effectively a summary of his speech yesterday. I have not changed the link; it's the same page but with completely different content.

So why didn't the BBC leave the original story up? There are literally dozens of stories relating to the Labour conference, so it's not like they just had to get rid of the original content of the article or they'd run out of space. And keeping it up wouldn't have been factually inaccurate since, at the time, it was believed to be true. The fact that what was reported did not become a reality is actually a news story in itself, rather than something that should be swept under the rug. In fact, the only mention you'll now find about debates is in this new article, titled 'PM has made debate decision' - but he's not telling, apparently.

Monday, September 28, 2009

Compare And Contrast

Gordon Brown, 3rd September 2009, said:

"We're not talking about an election at the moment, we're talking about how we deal with the policy issues. I've always been prepared to debate people... always prepared to join in a debate. I've given more statements to the House of Commons than any Prime Minister I think in the time I've been there, about the public issues of the day. Well, we'll deal with election issues when we come to discussing elections; but for the moment the most important thing is we have a public debate about the big issues."

But now the BBC reports that:

"Gordon Brown is ready to debate with David Cameron on TV not just during the general election campaign but before it, the BBC understands. The prime minister is said to be deciding overnight whether to include in his speech to the Labour conference a call for a series of debates."

So now he doesn't just want debates, he wants loads of them - even before an election? This is Brown trying to come into the game at half-time, change the size of the goals, and take the ball away if nobody wants to carry on playing. In other words, he's now trying to pretend that debates were his idea and that he has wanted them all along. The man has no shame.

Update - Wed 29th September: I'm too exhausted to blog about Brown's speech today. For must read articles check out the various contributors at the Spectator, as well as Guido - who has an excellent scoop on Brown's 21st century Dickensian workhouses. And did you notice how the speech - in the end - contained nothing about debates at all?

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Unbearable Tosspot Meets Conceited Git


Image from the Guardian. There is no intention on my part to make this a regular series. Brown just needs to stop having his photo taken with people who are so easy to do this with.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

James Macintyre Stamps His Little Feet

In this tragic blog post at the New Statesman:

"Has nothing happened in the world today? [The Prime Minister of the UK reversed over 10 years of economic policy, that's what] In between bits and pieces for this week's Ken Livingstone edit, [You poor man, having to deal with such dross] I've been checking the news online: this morning we were told by the BBC that Gordon Brown is likely to say the word "cuts" in his speech to the TUC this afternoon. This was hardened slightly to a firm prediction that he would say "cuts", to -- finally -- reports of the speech itself, in which he, um, said the word "cuts". Amazingly, each time I have clicked on "Google News" this "story" has led the international bulletins too. [Again, that's because it's quite important news. A story isn't unimportant just because James Macintyre doesn't understand its significance]

Like a clamouring drum, the media pack and Tory party -- increasingly working together -- [How dare they! In Labour's glorious Britain the press must support Labour and all its glorious achievements, gloriously!] have built up to this moment for days [Which wouldn't have been necessary had Brown not been in economic denial for the best part of forever] (never mind the difference between cuts now and cuts later). Now, like a baited bear, [Baited trout, more like] Brown has been forced to utter the word, after weeks of resistance. [What, and he should be applauded for not saying the bleeding obvious for weeks and months?] And the end result, the icing on the cake? George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, declares -- right on cue -- that the Tories have "won" the "biggest economic argument" and forced Brown into "complete capitulation". [Have they not, then? Has the Labour man who is actually quoted as saying "Tory cuts verses Labour investment", not just admitted that he's going to make cuts? Because that's pretty significant]

So, another day another dollar for the most media-supported Opposition in modern history." [Just where are you going with this? First of all, it isn't actually true. The Mirror is still Labour's spin-machine, and the Guardian is quite a distance from the Tories. Labour, on the other hand, enjoyed near total media support when they were elected in 1997, and have had the BBC doing their dirty work for more than a decade. And secondly, is it not okay for the media to recognise that the Tories are right? Must they always swing behind Labour, despite the damage Labour are doing to this country? Take your thumb out of your mouth, drop that pathetic sense of entitlement, learn something about economics, and grow a pair of testicles...]

A Conservative Home video on today's historic news, just for Jimmy M:

Friday, September 11, 2009

Will Brown Be On The Paedo Database?

The Daily Mail reports:

"The Children's Minister claimed today that millions of Britons must be placed on a new Big Brother-style child protection database to stop a repeat of the Soham murders.

Under the plan parents could face a £5,000 fine for driving their children's friends to a sports event or Cub Scout meeting if they have not been vetted first by the massive new government agency.

An astonishing 11.3million people - one adult in four - are likely to come under the watchful eye of the Independent Safeguarding Authority.

Millions of Britons will be placed on a new database to prevent a repeat of the Soham murders in 2002, where Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were killed. Launched next month, it will be the biggest vetting and clearing system in the world.

Every person who comes into regular contact with children or the elderly, through work or volunteering, must be approved by ISA officials checking for criminal convictions, disciplinary action and even unproven allegations."

So what I want to know is if Gordon Brown is going to volunteer himself for this piece of shit Orwellian database. Because I don't think these are all his kids:




Let Me Get This Right

Gordon Brown can't apologise for:

Saying he abolished boom and bust.

Labour's role in the expenses scandal.

Not giving our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq sufficient equipment to keep them safe.

Building up the largest budget deficit of all time.

'Smeargate'.

Absolutely anything he has done since he got his hands on the reins of power.

But he can apologise for things that happened when he was a year old.

I see...

Saturday, September 05, 2009

Cut-Price BBC

So, Alan Davies is complaining that the BBC has cut his salary for playing Jonathan Creek by 25%.

Two things strike me about this story; the first one being that if you take a job knowing in advance what the salary will be - which Davies no doubt did in this case - you don't then get to bitch about how much you're being paid.

And secondly, if the BBC can make programmes - apparently just as 'well' - while cutting anything from 25-50% from their budgets, why can't they also cut the licence fee by 25-50% and give us some of our money back?

Thursday, September 03, 2009

What Is He Talking About?

Gordon Brown, commenting on why he is currently refusing to take part in televised public debates with David Cameron and Nick Clegg:

"We're not talking about an election at the moment, we're talking about how we deal with the policy issues. I've always been prepared to debate people... always prepared to join in a debate. I've given more statements to the House of Commons than any Prime Minister I think in the time I've been there, about the public issues of the day. Well, we'll deal with election issues when we come to discussing elections; but for the moment the most important thing is we have a public debate about the big issues."

But we are talking about an election - a pre-election debate. And if you've always been prepared to debate people, why do you limit your debating to election time? Giving statements to the House of Commons is not debating, either - it's giving statements. And a public debate is okay, presumably because that won't involve anyone asking you any questions?

Nurse!